The most popular programs for the Supreme Court Cases - 2005 Tag http://www.c-spanvideo.org/browse?topic=821 en-US Copyright 2013, National Cable Satellite Corporation info@c-spanarchives.org (National Cable Satellite Corporation) info@c-spanarchives.org (National Cable Satellite Corporation) Tue, 06 Dec 2005 00:00:00 GMT Sat, 25 May 2013 17:49:11 GMT Following some court business including the release of an opinion by Justice Thomas and admissions to the Supreme Court Bar, attorneys made oral arguments in the case of [Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights]. The case revolved around the constitutionality of the Solomon Amendment, a federal law that requires universities to allow military recruitment on campus or lose federal funds. Solicitor General Paul Clement argued for the Department of Defense. Joshua Rosenkranz argued for the Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights. A New Jersey federal court rejected FAIR's argument that the Solomon Amendment violated the First Amendment. FAIR contended that universities should not have to allow military recruitment on campus because of the exclusion of homosexuals from the military violated their non-discrimination policies. On appeal, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court and ruled that the law violated the First Amendment by conditioning federal funds on allowing military recruiters on campus. Congress originally passed the Solomon Amendment in 1994. The Department of Defense interpreted the amendment as merely requiring schools to give recruiters access to the campus, but not requiring schools to affirmatively assist the recruiters. After September 11, 2001, the Department of Defense (DoD) indicated that it interpreted the amendment to require schools to treat military recruiters in the same way that they treat all other employment recruiters. In 2004, Congress amended the Solomon Amendment to reflect the DoD policy. This program contained audio released by the court immediately after the arguments were presented with still images of participants as they spoke. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/190181-1 info@c-spanarchives.org (National Cable Satellite Corporation) http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/190181-1 Tue, 06 Dec 2005 00:00:00 GMT Attorneys made oral arguments in the case of [Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England]. Justices questioned litigants as they mad arguments about the scope of New Hampshire legislation in question, the nature of emergency and critical decisions by attending physicians, and precedents involving prior abortion decisions. In June of 2003 the New Hampshire Legislature passed the [New Hampshire Parental Notification Prior to Abortion Act] requiring that the doctor notify the parent of a minor at least 48 hours before performing an abortion. Without parental notification, the doctor can be sued by the minor's parents and face possible criminal charges. A New Hampshire District court ruled that the act was unconstitutional using previous standards set by the Supreme Court in [Planned Parenthood of Southeast Pennsylvania v. Casey] and [Stenberg v. Carhart], which provides that laws may not impose an undue burden on the right to choose abortion. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's ruling. This program contained audio released by the court immediately after the arguments were presented with still images of participants as they spoke. Justice Thomas was present but did not ask any questions. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/190101-1 info@c-spanarchives.org (National Cable Satellite Corporation) http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/190101-1 Tue, 06 Dec 2005 00:00:00 GMT A forum was held on "Assisted Dying: Crime or Compassion?" During the first panel, participants discussed whether states have sovereign authority over end-of-life issues, or if the Controlled Substances Act gave the U.S. Attorney General authority over the use of prescription drugs for such uses. They also talked about whether the Constitution protected assisted suicide as an issue of religious freedom and whether a directive by the U.S. Attorney General on assisted suicide threatened states' rights. Members of the panel spoke about the U.S. Supreme Court case [Gonzales v. Oregon], which reviews where the federal government improperly undermined Oregon's Death with Dignity Act. Following their remarks, the panelists responded to questions and comments from members of the audience. On October 5, [Gonzales v. Oregon] was brought before the United States Supreme Court. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/189174-1 info@c-spanarchives.org (National Cable Satellite Corporation) http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/189174-1 Tue, 06 Dec 2005 00:00:00 GMT Participants, lawmakers, and interested parties spoke to reporters on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court following oral arguments in [Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of New England]. In June of 2003 the New Hampshire Legislature passed the New Hampshire Parental Notification Prior to Abortion Act requiring that the doctor notify the parent of a minor at least 48 hours before performing an abortion. Without parental notification, the doctor can be sued by the minor's parents and face possible criminal charges. A New Hampshire District court ruled that the act was unconstitutional using previous standards set by the Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood of Southeast Pennsylvania v. Casey and Stenberg v. Carhart, which provides that laws may not impose an undue burden on the right to choose abortion. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's ruling. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/190137-1 info@c-spanarchives.org (National Cable Satellite Corporation) http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/190137-1 Tue, 06 Dec 2005 00:00:00 GMT Following oral arguments for [Rumsfeld v. FAIR], Mr. Rosenkranz, who represents the Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR), and other representatives of the law community spoke to reporters. They discussed discrimination by the military, the rights of universities, freedom of speech, and gay rights. The case revolved around the constitutionality of the Solomon Amendment, a federal law that requires universities to allow military recruitment on campus or lose federal funds. After the media stakeout, telephone lines were open for viewer comments on news of the day. Scenes from outside the U.S. Supreme Court were shown. Callers discussed allowing military recruitment on campus. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/190210-1 info@c-spanarchives.org (National Cable Satellite Corporation) http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/190210-1 Tue, 06 Dec 2005 00:00:00 GMT Warrington Parker, a co-counsel for the Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR), and Gerald Walpin debated military recruiting on college campuses. They discussed [Rumsfeld v. FAIR], a U.S. Supreme Court case on the constitutionality of the 1996 Solomon Amendment, heard in oral arguments later in the day. The amendment is a federal law that requires universities to allow military recruitment on campus or lose federal funds. Mr. Parker contends that universities should not have to allow military recruitment on campus because of the exclusion of homosexuals from the military. Mr. Walpin, a former JAG attorney with the U.S. Air Force, has filed a brief to the Court on behalf of law students and Medal of Honor recipients that contend that the the merits of the military's don't-ask-don't-tell policy are irrelevant to the broader First Amendment issues at stake in this case. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/190109-2 info@c-spanarchives.org (National Cable Satellite Corporation) http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/190109-2 Tue, 06 Dec 2005 00:00:00 GMT A forum was held on "Assisted Dying: Crime or Compassion?" During the second panel, participants discussed whether states have sovereign authority over end-of-life issues, or if the Controlled Substances Act gave the U.S. Attorney General authority over the use of prescription drugs for such uses. They also talked about whether the Constitution protected assisted suicide as an issue of religious freedom and whether a directive by the U.S. Attorney General on assisted suicide threatened states' rights. Members of the panel spoke about the improvements in end of life care by Oregon and gave a broader perspective on the issue. Following their remarks, the panelists responded to questions and comments from members of the audience. On October 5, [Gonzales v. Oregon] was brought before the United States Supreme Court. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/189174-2 info@c-spanarchives.org (National Cable Satellite Corporation) http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/189174-2 Tue, 06 Dec 2005 00:00:00 GMT Jim Barnett spoke about the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold Oregon's assisted suicide law. He talked about the ruling's impact on future action at the federal and state levels. The guest responded to telephone calls and electronic mail. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/190784-5 info@c-spanarchives.org (National Cable Satellite Corporation) http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/190784-5 Tue, 06 Dec 2005 00:00:00 GMT Mr. Masci moderated a panel discussion on [Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of New England] scheduled for oral arguments before the Supreme Court the following day. They talked about the case, the court's past rulings on abortion issues, the potential impact of Chief Justice Roberts' presence on the court, and potential impact of the ruling in the matter. Following their remarks they answered questions from the audience. In June of 2003 the New Hampshire Legislature passed the New Hampshire Parental Notification Prior to Abortion Act requiring that the doctor notify the parent of a minor at least 48 hours before performing an abortion. Without parental notification, the doctor can be sued by the minor's parents and face possible criminal charges. A New Hampshire District Court ruled that the act was unconstitutional using previous standards set by the Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood of Southeast Pennsylvania v. Casey and Stenberg v. Carhart, which provides that laws may not impose an undue burden on the right to choose abortion. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's ruling. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/190097-1 info@c-spanarchives.org (National Cable Satellite Corporation) http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/190097-1 Tue, 06 Dec 2005 00:00:00 GMT America and the Courts covered the case of [Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England] before the U.S. Supreme Court. The program includes the oral arguments as audio released by the Court immediately after the arguments with still images of participants as they spoke. Also shown are the comments the attorneys made to reporters on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court following their oral arguments In June of 2003 the New Hampshire Legislature passed the New Hampshire Parental Notification Prior to Abortion Act requiring that the doctor notify the parent of a minor at least 48 hours before performing an abortion. Without parental notification, the doctor can be sued by the minor's parents and face possible criminal charges. A New Hampshire District court ruled that the act was unconstitutional using previous standards set by the Supreme Court in [Planned Parenthood of Southeast Pennsylvania v. Casey] and [Stenberg v. Carhart], which provides that laws may not impose an undue burden on the right to choose abortion. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's ruling. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/190175-1 info@c-spanarchives.org (National Cable Satellite Corporation) http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/190175-1 Tue, 06 Dec 2005 00:00:00 GMT Telephone lines were open for viewer comments on news of the day. Callers discussed the announcement by Porter Goss, head of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), that no further disciplinary processes would be pursued regarding the September 11 attacks. Participating by telephone, Ms. Holland described the first case for new Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Roberts. She described his questioning of the Oregon lawyer during the [Gonzales v. Oregon] trial. A brief video clip of Chief Justice Roberts with Justice Kennedy was shown. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/189140-1 info@c-spanarchives.org (National Cable Satellite Corporation) http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/189140-1 Tue, 06 Dec 2005 00:00:00 GMT Participating by video connection from New York City, Ms. Pearl talked about abortion and the nomination of Harriet Miers to the United States Supreme Court. Planned Parenthood is calling for the Senate to thoroughly examine Miers' judicial philosophy, including full access to her records on abortion. Ms. Pearl also discussed [Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood], a case involving parental notification. She also responded to questions and comments from telephone callers. Planned Parenthood has not stated its support or opposition to the Miers nomination. On November 30th, the Supreme Court will hear the first abortion related case in five years, [Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood]. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/189227-4 info@c-spanarchives.org (National Cable Satellite Corporation) http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/189227-4 Tue, 06 Dec 2005 00:00:00 GMT